There are several errors in this Inquirer editorial:

As the Bush administration tries once again surreptitiously to gut the Clean Air Act, it cannot fool Americans on these two points:

1. If you have to warn people about a food, something's wrong with it.

2. A poison is still a poison, even if you change the label.

Forty-five states have strict warnings about how much fish people should eat from fresh and coastal waters. Why? Because the fish contain dangerous levels of mercury.

Mercury can cause brain damage, particularly in babies and children under 6. One in 12 women has absorbed enough mercury to pose a threat to a developing fetus.

Mercury also is linked to palsies, seizures, learning problems and structural abnormalities. In adults, it can bring on cardiovascular problems.

If they say that if food needs a warning, there's something wrong with it. What about a good steak? Red meat is bad for you. Milk? high in cholesterol. Bread? carbohydrates cause retained fat, which in turn causes obesity which...well you get the point.

As to the second point about a poison is a poison, let's take a second to look at what is poisonous. As the theory put forth by 16th century chemist Paracelsus tells us, everything is toxic. The dose is what dictates the effect on the human body. As an example; say you have a headache and take one aspirin. Your headaches goes away. Let's say you took twenty aspirin, you would have detrimental effects that may include death. It's called the Dose-Response Relationship. Hence, everything is a potential poison or is toxic.

Granted, we have to reduce the level of mercury in emissions from power plants and other sources, however, the reductions that occurred after passage of the 1990 amendments have been significant (signed into law by G. H. W. Bush for the record).

So, just before the court's deadline this month, the Bush administration came up with a market-based, cap-and-trade scheme favored by industry, particularly by several large Bush campaign contributors. Not coincidentally, the idea mirrors Bush's Clear Skies proposal, which is stalled in Congress.

This proposal would relabel mercury as a run-of-the-mill pollutant, instead of the hazard it is. It reduces mercury by only 30 percent and takes until 2018 to get rid of it.

All without assuring public safety. The draft of the rule admits: "The overall cap level may not eliminate the risk of unacceptable adverse health effects of mercury emissions."

That's especially true where mercury is concentrated - places such as Pennsylvania, which ranks third nationally in mercury pollution from power-plant emissions.

Americans should demand that their government treat mercury as the health threat it is. As with arsenic, they don't want mercury in their water. The Bush administration should protect public health, not private industry.

Mercury is a run-of-the-mill pollutant. Does it present a hazard? Yes. Is that hazard greater than barium, chromium, or benzene? It depends on how the exposure occurs. Does that make it any more or less hazardous? We are not talking about dioxin.

The arsenic in the water argument has been debunked, President Bush passed the stricter regulatory levels after studying the issue. Just as an aside, the arsenic in the drinking water was not put there by industry, it was naturally occurring arsenic.